Friday, June 30, 2006

Islam believes and promotes only one relationship between male and female and that is the relation of lust: "If a man and a woman are alone in one place, the third person present is the devil". Prophet Mohammed.

I am not allowed to swim, ski, ride a bike, dance, learn to play musical instruments, practice gymnastics, or any other sport. I am not even permitted to watch men play sports, either in the stadium and/or on television.I am not permitted to participate in Olympic games. From age 7, I am segregated from all males in and out of my extended family. My father, grandfather, uncles, brothers or my male cousins are not allowed to be present at any ceremonies for my accomplishments. They will not be allowed to participate in my birthday parties.

I have to study under female teachers and professors. However, since women of prior generations were not allowed to go to school, there are not that many qualified women teachers and professors. Male professors must teach me from behind a wall.I am to be treated by female doctors. Go to female dentists. And if there are none, then I have to go without or I must be examined through some sort of divider.

My worth is based on the Islamic Laws of Retribution, 24th edition, December 1982, as half of a man. It doesn't matter who I am, how educated I am, and what earning potential I may have in my life. My worth is half of a man, any man.

I am a Moslem woman. I have no face. I have no identity.

Meanwhile the "women's movent"--which claims to be about "bringing equality for all women" keeps sinking to new levels of complete irrelevancy and idiocy by squawking in its usual hysterical manner about ridiculous issues like these; while they chant silly slogans : "Condi, Condi, Condi Rice—your policies suck but your shoes are nice!"

The world is abuzz with the release of yet another Bin Laden audiotape [what's the matter, Ossamy? Can't bear to have your picture taken? Too old? Too sick? Too dead?]in which he hails Zarqawi as an animal (a "lion" to be specific):

In the message, bin Laden demands President Bush hand over the body of al-Zarqawi to his family and effusively praises the Jordanian-born militant, often in rhyming couplets. His voice sounded breathy and fatigued at times.

***DR. SANITY HAS OBTAINED AN EXCLUSIVE TRANSLATION of the audiotape and for the benefit of her audience reproduces the translation and meter. Shockingly, on the tape Bin Laden pays tribute to his dear former lieutenant in Iraq; and in his frail, quavering voice, laden with emotion, sings farewell to the Prince of Al Qaeda. (Experts suspect that OBL has studied audio tapes of Celine Dion, but that is mere speculation)

LOVE SONG FROM THE JIHAD(as sung by Sheik Osama Bin Laden upon the death of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi)

Every night in my caveI see you. I feel you. Cause the hate you inspired will go on!

Far across the distance And spaces between us You are slain but jihad must go on.

Near, far, wherever you are I believe that jihad must go on Too bad, the dammed infidel's glad,And that makes me so sad,But I'm sure that jihad goes on and on

Death only touches us one time; But hate lasts for a lifetime. And continues to kill when we're gone

Now you've waved bye byegone to the great caliphate in the sky

You were the best, my dear lion;You are gone and I'm cryin'-- But your hate is so sure to go on.

Near, far, wherever you are I believe that the jihad goes on You will never, get to severMichael Moore's head-- not while you're dead: But your hate will go on and on!

There is some hate that will never abate....

You're dead, and now I dread, That I won't have much longer to go on.Al Qaeda mourns you; what will we do? You're an ex-terrorist But your hate will go on and on....(silent sobbing noted in the background)

Thursday, June 29, 2006

If this is true, the world should be completely outraged and the Palestinians should lose all international aid or support.

But what do you want to bet that the world's outrage will be directed against Israel? What do you want to bet that the Palestinians will be playing up the victim card? What do you want to bet that any condemnation of the Palestinians will gloss over their behavior and focus on Israel's response? What do you want to bet that the UN will support the Palestinians? What do you want to bet that Jimmy Carter will denounce Israel and hint that it is all America's fault? What do you want to bet that the rest of the lunatic left will do the same?

Let me make it clear that my point in drawing attention to the reports with which I began is not to draw attention away from any atrocities that have been committed in Iraq by US soldiers. At Haditha and elsewhere, if there have been transgressions of the laws of war by American personnel, then they should be investigated and prosecuted. What is breathtaking about Younge's piece, however, is the structure of justifying advocacy it contains. He talks of the wanton murder of civilians in order to delegitimize the US occupation, while passing over the fact that, almost daily, wanton murder is being committed by forces opposed to the occupation, and as a way of defeating not only the occupation itself but also political arrangements democratically voted for by the Iraqi people. It's just as if this weren't happening or else had no troubling moral implications in Younge's head. No, on the other side of things, there is just 'resistance' - almost like a natural phenomenon, beyond right and wrong, good or evil. How come it doesn't occur to him that if 'the wanton murder of civilians' - week in and week out - is part of the resistance to occupation, then there is 'clearly something wrong' with this so-called resistance? And how come he doesn't then go on to ask what it would mean if this so-called resistance were to enjoy the triumph of bringing about a coalition withdrawal? How come there isn't a two-sided assessment of the aforesaid 'mission', informed by all those wanton murders with which I began? It seems that wanton murder in Iraq doesn't show up on Younge's radar unless it's Americans who are responsible for it.

There is a psychological blindness suffered by most of the left these days. This is an hysterical blindness, whose underlying motivation is obscured by the passionate and emotional appeals of those suffering from it.

Something very troubling is going on inside their psyches--something that they wish to avoid seeing at all costs; because if it were to come into thier mental focus; and if their brains were to process it--it would turn their world upside down.

Many of them truly believe they are looking at reality -- that's why they seriously refer to themselves as the "reality-based community". This is the same sort of phenomenon as the famous "I am not a crook" type of statement. If you have to keep asserting something like that, it is often the case that you probably are a crook. Likewise, if you have to keep mentioning that you are "reality-based", it becomes more and more certain that --whatever you may be, reality has little to do with it.

Instead of reality, the left is looking at is a figment of their imagination; an expression of their deepest desires; a deep, dark secret that must be kept from their own awareness.

Let us take a moment to assess all the information we have about their psychological sickness. By looking at the outlines, we can make a reasonable guess about the underlying motivation that energizes their blindness--and determine what it is they do not want to face in reality:

--They are willing to condemn American soldiers--before an investigation; without sufficient evidence; and automatically assuming the worse.

--They use several isolated incidents; and a handful of individuals and generalize the motives of a few to the entire military;

--They refuse to acknowledge that the military aggressively pursues wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers and holds them accountable.

--This general condemnation of the military is --for them--simply more evidence showing how evil America is; proof that America has betrayed the values they claim to desire to uphold.

--They willfully ignore--or worse, are not interested in the continual attacks, suicide bombing and ruthless murders of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children by the terrorists.

--To the extent that they acknowledge such attacks at all, they use them as additional evidence of the evil of America (the old children's lament, "But Sammy made me do it!" seems to apply).

--They completely ignore the fact that numerous milestones have been achieved by the Iraqi people; elections have been held; democratic institutions are being developed; and in general, all the good that Americans have done.

--At best they will only grant that the actions of the US and the terrorist are morally equivalent; at worse, they grant the terrorists the moral high ground and are willing to believe anything one of them says about us; but distrust and automatically disbelieve anything President Bush or his adminsitrations; as well as the US military has to say.

I would be remiss as a psychiatrist if I did not ask the exact same question that Norm Geras has. Why are they focusing on supposed American atrocities and indifferent to the terrorists' ongoing legacy of atrocities? Why are they so sure that America is the real evil in the world--and dismissive of the Islamofascist threat? Why is it that all their anger and rage is directed at America--and they have no emotion left over to expend on the pervasive evil that is evident to anyone with eyes open?

How is it even remotely possible that John Murtha could consider--let alone publicly claim--that the US is the biggest threat to world peace? A sentiment echoed by much of the left, and which reverberates in the passages that Geras quotes in his blog.

The events of the 21st century have come as a rude psychological shock to the left. They, like all of us, have been stunned by the terrible events that have transpired; brought about by the medieval remnants of a religion that is anti-civilization, anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Israeli; and fundamentally anti-human. The barbarism of the fanatics of this religion is almost unacceptable to the modern mind, and has caused most of the West to stumble in response, held back by their own decency. It has caused a re-evaluation of many tenets of western civilization and a paradigm shift of enormous proportions as the West struggles to respond to the never-before conceptualized danger.

For the left, the events of the early 21st century have been especially traumatic; coming as they did just as the world was about to bury the useless leftist ideology once and for all. It was to be "the end of history" after all. But the Islamofascists have given the left breathing room and a chance to salvage their own quasi-religious beliefs about socialism and utopia.

But there was only one problem. Their real motives had to be hidden. As much as they admire the Hugo Chavez' of the world; to blatantly express his views is to unmask the left's agenda, and most of the the serious intellects of the left realized this. Thus, they deliberately wrapped themselves in the cloak of the "patriot" or the "internationalist" in order to keep that agenda hidden.

The psychological blindness allow them to ignore the real evil -- those who perpetrated 9/11, 7/7; and who daily blow themselves up for the glory of an insatiably ruthless god, glorified by human sacrifice. The blindness results in their being sublimely indifferent to the reality around them; but permits them to focus on events and incidents that are relatively trivial in comparison. Their world is falling apart; their ideology has failed repeatedly in the real world; but all they can do is close their eyes to it and focus ("displace") their anger onto a convenient target whose very existence reminds them of the failures.

The blindness and their displaced anger together inexorably point to one fundamental psychological truth. They identify with the terrorists. The left deeply feels the terrorists pain--and shares their anger and rage. After all, both have the same enemy.

The horrible truth they cannot acknowledge when they look at themselves in the mirror is that they see the terrorists as their allies in a last, desperate battle to save their ideology. And they cannot and will not acknowledge the consequences of that. So the blindness becomes deeper, darker. The sickness worse.

The demon has been awakened, but they don't want to see it in themselves.

Looking at my own reflectionWhen suddenly it changesViolently it changesOh no, There is no turning back nowYou've woken up the demon ... in me

Get up, come on get down with the sicknessGet up, come on get down with the sicknessGet up, come on get down with the sicknessOpen up your hate, and let it flow into meGet up, come on get down with the sicknessYou mother get upCome on get down with the sicknessYou fucker get upCome on get down with the sicknessMadness is the gift, that has been given to me

I can see inside you, the sickness is risingDon't try to deny what you feel(Will you give in to me?)It seems that all that was good has diedAnd is decaying in me(Will you give in to me?)

Looking at my own reflectionWhen suddenly it changesViolently it changesOh no, There is no turning back nowYou've woken up the demon ... in me

Get up, come on get down with the sicknessGet up, come on get down with the sicknessGet up, come on get down with the sicknessOpen up your hate, and let it flow into meGet up, come on get down with the sicknessYou mother get upCome on get down with the sicknessYou fucker get upCome on get down with the sicknessMadness is the gift, that has been given to me

I can see inside you, the sickness is risingDon't try to deny what you feel(Will you give in to me?)It seems that all that was good has diedAnd is decaying in me(Will you give in to me?)-Get Down With The Sickness from Dawn of the Dead

Another act of justice in academia also occurred this week: The University of Colorado plans to fire Ward Churchill after two committees found significant evidence of research misconduct and "repeated and deliberate" infractions of scholarship rules. He will of course, sue; and enter into the poor victim role with great enthusiasm.

You might even say for both of these situations, that the chickens have come home to roost.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

I've been tied up in meetings most of the day and have several things to finish up, so I thought I bring you a collection of Osama cartoons (the next best thing to Mohammed cartoons!)

UPDATE: The Anchoress points me to a new blog by (ahem) "Zarqawi's Mother" ! In light of the fact that FoxNews just announced that Osama is coming out with a video honoring his ex-lieutenant, I propose a blog called "Osama's Mama" to help us understand the psychopathic religious wonderboy.

I remember back in 1981 or so, when I was addicted to a cheesy BBC sci-fi series, Blake's 7. I looked forward to each episode as these courageous freedom fighters battled against impossible odds in a totalitarian universe. Then, incredibly, in the final show of the series, all the heroes were gunned down by the evil galactic federation. The camera panned all the dead bodies and....fade out. End of story.

Apparently, the series ran out of money and inspiration. So everyone was killed off. Nice going, guys. I was outraged then, and thinking about it now, I'm still outraged.

I can't say exactly why this sort of thing bothers me so much. It is probably because I look to art in all its incarnations to inspire me and give me the emotional fuel to carry on through all the trials, tribulations and setbacks of life. I stated my thoughts on the subject in this post:

...art is a critical part of life and through it one can can become aware of all the potential of what life can be. It is a way for humans to bring real, concrete meaning to abstract concept. As a selective recreation of reality, art uniquely captures and presents an idea or emotion in a way that can be grasped and understood by an observer. It provides, in other words, a "sense of life" --an instinctual fuel--that can inspire and motivate the perceiver--or, it can have the opposite effect.

I certainly don't need art to remind me that sometimes things are hopeless or that there is a price to pay in life. In my profession I am reminded of that most every day. I don't need art to selectively recreate death, despair, and the triumph of evil.

Of course there is always a price that the hero must pay to vanquish evil. But if the price is his own death, then what kind of hope or chance is there for the rest of us who are trying to stand up to the darkness? The only way such a sacrifice can be meaningful--in fiction anyway--is if the hero's death is moral; and the flame of his life inspires the heroic in others.

And then you could go on to explore the literature of the last 20+ years; the movies and culture that are dedicated to the "darkness" to which Dr. Seligman refers. I am very very familiar with it. It is why I turned to science fiction and fantasy, where there are still moral universes to get lost in. It is why books like Harry Potter have achieved phenomenal success and why Lord of the Rings was so profoundly successful. They were bright, glittering stars in the midst of a cultural black hole that was sucking all the joy, hope and love from life.

Call me a romantic, but in fiction I desperately need for Good to triumph over Evil. I know it doesn't always happen in the real world--but that is precisely why I need it in a fictional one -- a place where virtue, well-being, nobility, happiness, and meaning are all within the realm of human possibility, and where life is not just unmitigated tragedy, violence, and meaninglessness.

Without art's emotional fuel to sustain the vision of the Good, how would we ever be able to carry on?

Will these abductions be the trigger for real war? If history is any guide, probably not; yet if it doesn't serve as the trigger, the logic of the Arab paranoid conspiracy dictates that they will need to escalate until they finally receive the all-out attack they so richly desire.

It's fascinating to watch this process unfold, which is neither war, which Halkin understands, nor "peace" as pacifists would understand it. So perhaps the "fence" isn't the national border as we would like to imagine it as either, but a kind of village palisade. Maybe the best end state we can hope for is a kind of chronic, but fairly low level violence of the sort that tribes which sporadically raided each other once understood.

Of course, the obvious "escalation" for the insane Palestinians-- who would rather kill Jews than try to establish a civil society in Gaza-- is this.

A spokesman for gunmen in the Gaza Strip said they had fired a rocket tipped with a chemical warhead at Israel early on Thursday.

The Israeli army had no immediate comment on the claim by the spokesman from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed wing of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement.

The group had recently claimed to possess about 20 biological warheads for the makeshift rockets commonly fired from Gaza at Israeli towns. This was the first time the group had claimed firing such a rocket.

Make no mistake--if any of these Islamic fanatics have the capability--biological, chemical or nuclear--do you have any doubts that they will use it?

Over at The Belmont Club , Wretchard invites a comparison between Bill Keller's letter justifying his decision to expose classified programs in the GWOT; and his newspaper's decision NOT to print the Mohammed cartoons.

The question we start with as journalists is not "why publish?" but "why would we withhold information of significance?" We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the U.S. But we need a compelling reason to do so.

The decision on not to publish the Mohammed cartoons:

New York Times editor Bill Keller said that he and his staff concluded after a "long and vigorous debate" that publishing the cartoon would be "perceived as a particularly deliberate insult" by Muslims. "Like any decision to withhold elements of a story, this was neither easy nor entirely satisfying, but it feels like the right thing to do."

Thus we can conclude that--from the perspective of the NY Times editorial staff-- protecting the feelings of Muslims is far more "compelling" than protecting the lives of Americans.

In going through my sitemeter referrals yesterday, I discovered this link to a BBC Asia forum that was supposedly discussing my post Shame, the Arab Psyche and Islam. Most of the responses seem to have little to do with the post, actually; and then I came to #13:

This posting has been temporarily hidden, because a member of our Moderation Team has referred it to the Hosts for a decision as to whether it contravenes the House rules in some way. We will do everything we can to ensure that a decision is made as quickly as possible.

You can read the "House Rules" for yourself; as well as the post of mine that was (sort of) being discussed. Since the results of the deliberations of the "Moderation Team" are emailed to the people in the thread, I have no way of knowing for sure what the outcome was.

However, the thread abruptly ends after the original poster asks people to respond to the question, "Do you think, Islam and such Arab culture has become interwined, thus entered the pyche of fundamentalist muslims? Thus treating females as SECOND class citizens?"

Apparently, you are not allowed to ask such questions. It's too offensive.

Monday, June 26, 2006

So I receive a phone call from a reporter at ABC News. They are working on a story about Haditha, and the reporter’s comments to me go something along the lines of; “I am particularly interested in your recent pieces on Haditha in which you say that in order to understand what happened, we must first understand the men involved, the dynamics of the system in which they operate, and the realities of ground combat.”The reporter’s referencing of my own comments are somewhat paraphrased, but his following questions are clearly etched in my mind verbatim:

“Don’t you think the killings at Haditha [November 19, 2005] are the result of a wrong war and a failed policy?” he asks. “Much like the tragedy of My Lai [the killings of unarmed civilians by U.S. soldiers in the village of My Lai, Vietnam in 1968] was the result of a wrong war and a failed policy?”

I was taken aback for about as long as it takes to silently mouth the words, “This is going to be too easy.” After all, it’s one thing to read and listen to politicized versions of news stories spun by the various national news organizations. But to actually experience the machine as it begins to process what they plan to feed the masses is quite another.

I like that phrase, what they plan to feed the masses.

Much has been written today about the rationalizations of Bill Keller of the NY Times, trying to justify his newspaper's release of classified information during a time of war.

I particularly liked these two responses highlighted by Instapundit, Michael Barone asks: "Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? They say that these surveillance programs are subject to abuse, but give no reason to believe that this concern is anything but theoretical." and Tom Maguire asks: "Tell me again whether there are any checks at all on this 'power that has been given us.' Where is the accountability at the Times - can We the People un-elect Bill Keller? . . . Or, if there is no accountability, is that really how we want to run our democracy? Don't We the People have the right to decide that some national security secrets need to be kept secret? Or can any bureaucrat with an agenda overrule his elected superiors? Let me re-phrase that - can any bureaucrat with an agenda with which the Times is comfortable overrule his elected superiors on national security issues?"

But the completely self-absorbed Keller can only pat himself on the back for his skepticism of the government's motives, and claims to need a "compelling" reason not to publish national security secrets.

Some of the reporting in The Times and elsewhere prior to the war in Iraq was criticized for not being skeptical enough of the Administration's claims about the Iraqi threat. The question we start with as journalists is not "why publish?" but "why would we withhold information of significance?" We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the U.S. But we need a compelling reason to do so.

Protecting American citizens from another attack is not a compelling enough reason for him apparently.

Last night I was watching a series on the American Revolution on the History Channel. The show was detailing the abysmal failures of General George Washington during the first year of combat. So poor was the morale, that there were plots to actually wrest away the leadership of the continental army from Washington.

What caught my attention in this episode, however, was the impact of one particular person during the gloomy and hopeless time for American independence. A young journalist and pamphleteer who was in the Army under Washington decided that what the colonies needed more than anything, was inspiration. Thomas Paine had already come to some fame as the author of Common Sense , a pamphlet published in January 1776, and whose ringing defense of liberty united the young nation and inspired the leaders to stand up to the British.

With Washington in full retreat, Paine hastened back to Philadelphia--which was already being evacuated in expectation of occupation by the British--and published The Crisis, which was rapidly disseminated through the colonies. Washington himself was so moved by Paine's words, that just before he crossed the Delaware in a surprise attack on the British-- the boldest move he made in the war--he had the stirring words read aloud to his troops.

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

But, before the line of irrecoverable separation be drawn between us, let us reason the matter together: Your conduct is an invitation to the enemy, yet not one in a thousand of you has heart enough to join him. Howe is as much deceived by you as the American cause is injured by you. He expects you will all take up arms, and flock to his standard, with muskets on your shoulders. Your opinions are of no use to him, unless you support him personally, for 'tis soldiers, and not Tories, that he wants.

I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel, against the mean principles that are held by the Tories: a noted one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, "Well! give me peace in my day." Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty. Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them. A man can distinguish himself between temper and principle, and I am as confident, as I am that God governs the world, that America will never be happy till she gets clear of foreign dominion. Wars, without ceasing, will break out till that period arrives, and the continent must in the end be conqueror; for though the flame of liberty may sometimes cease to shine, the coal can never expire.

Offhand, I can't think of any of our sunshine patriot journalists today whose writings would do much to inspire America's troops. Endanger them; outrage them; or undermine them perhaps...but hardly inspire.

In my profession, I have learned the hard way over the years that you need to take what people say seriously. It is true that people say many foolish things, and it's always a difficult task to determine not only what they mean by what they say; but also what their real intent might be. I take my responsibilities as a psychiatrist seriously, and I try to protect people from harming themselves and others to the best of my ability.

I try to err (and I do make mistakes) on the side of caution, because we are talking life and death here. Ultimately, I realize that I cannot protect everyone or prevent a determined person from killing either himself or other people. All individuals must take responsibility for their own behavior; but I do the best that I can.

Over the years, I have been both condemned and blessed by people when I intervened to prevent something bad from happening.

I have learned to take even the most psychotic and delusional people very seriously--perhaps even more seriously than a normal person; because when someone is out of touch with reality they tend to be more unpredictable, and their behavior even more irrational than usual. This is particularly true when the subject of wanting to kill others or kill themselves comes up. Just because someone is insane, it does not make them harmless.

That is why I read with interest Ralph Peters column this morning about the recent arrests of terrorist wannabes in Miami:

The feds aren't perfect. Only God is. But in our War on Terror the greatest proof of success is a negative - the absence of attacks. And since the horrors of 9/11 (so soon forgotten by so many), al Qaeda and its surrogates have not been able to stage a single strike on American soil. And it isn't because they haven't wanted to hurt us.

The viciousness which those on the left aim at honest - and underpaid - federal employees was on evidence again this weekend. After the Thursday bust of the al Qaeda wannabes down in Liberty City, it took less than 48 hours for the critics to mobilize. By Saturday, we were being told that those arrested weren't a serious threat, that they'd been entrapped, that they're just misguided youths who need a hug. The entrapment charge won't hold up. If there's one thing the FBI understands, it's how to build a case. But the left will nonetheless champion murderous thugs again ("Free Mumia!"). We'll hear ad nauseum that the Miami Lice were incompetent, that they had no weapons or money, that it was all talk.

Now consider how Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols & Co. would have come across had they been popped for conspiracy three or four months before the Oklahoma City bombing - namely, as nuts with delusions of grandeur. Jobless and living on the edge of poverty, McVeigh and Nichols would've seemed pathetic, not deadly. Losers. Like the perps in Miami.

It only took a pile of cheap fertilizer, an old vehicle and one committed killer to bring down the Murrow Federal Building, kill 168 people and shatter thousands of lives. And it wouldn't have taken very much for those half-baked fanatics in Miami to kill hundreds, if not thousands.

Then we would've heard endless shrieks of "Intelligence failure!" The Pelosi-Dean-Kerry Surrendercrats would've damned the Bush administration as asleep at the wheel and incompetent. And the elite media would've expressed outrage that no undercover programs were in place to detect terrorists before they struck.

Those who minimize the arrest of these "nuts with delusions of grandeur" are themselves not operating with a full deck. Weapons (particularly WMD) in the hands of "nuts" are far more dangerous and more likely to be used than in the hands of someone without the disordered, paranoid and delusional thinking.

Since 9/11 we have been--quite rightly-- taking the madmen of the world seriously. That is why we have had no further attacks yet on American soil. Those who want to pretend--for political and ideological reasons--that the fact we have had no further attacks in our country has nothing whatsoever to do with the actions of the evil Bushitler fascist administration, will go on belittlening and undermining everything that adminstration is trying to do to keep us safe.

Sometimes the insane behavior of the Democrats and the left in general makes you wonder who the real madmen are.

In this post I argued that multiculturalism, postmodern politically correct thought, and radical environmentalism were three of the four major strategies used by socialism's deadenders to keep their failed 20th century ideology alive.

In case you doubt the anti-capitalist agenda of todays radical left environmentalists, here's a recent cartoon that sums it up for you:

As you can see, the gist of the cartoon is that global warming is being deliberately caused by all about those money-grubbing capitalists.

This conveniently forgets the environmental disasters that socialist and communist paradises in the world have presided over in the last 50 years or so.

The basic issue for these radical environmentalists is not to end global warming--it is to discredit capitalism and to use global warming and other environmental concerns as a justification to impose their ideological and political agenda. They haven't a clue how to really counter the natural cooling and warming trends of the planet--but if they blame it on human beings, then the solution is to control people.

Global warming is a scientific issue. I can be convinced that the earth is getting warmer, but it will take more than slogans and hysteria to convince me that the warming is something other than a natural cycle in our planet's history that may have some repercussions on human life.

If the radical environmentalists really wanted to "do something" about global warming, then they would be calling for funding projects that explore countermeasures and methods to adapt to it. What we see instead is the same kind of religious fanaticism and holy fervor that the left so despises in the fundamental right. But what they really want is power over people.

Theirs is basically a totalitarian agenda in which they, the "elites", will dictate how people should live on this earth.

For some time there has been a struggle between the totalitarians of the right and the totalitarians of the left to dominate. All the major conflicts of the last century occurred when one or the other tried to take control over the world.

The Marxist left always based its claim for socialist leadership on "scientific principles" --including technology--which they assert "proves" that socialism works; except of course, that it didn't. Which is why the left has adopted the "new and improved" doctrine of radical environmentalism (which asserts that technology is evil and destructive),insisting that human society and progress are "destroying" the earth. Of course, they cleverly invoke "science" as a justification for their beliefs--a strategy that is identical to that adopted by the creationists in their "Intelligent Design" arguments (which, of course, the left has complete contempt for).

Now, implicit in these statements is the fact that it must have been even warmer before that. Sometime previously, the Earth was warmer than it is now. Can you believe it? How did civilization survive such a catastrophe? Was that what put Atlantis under the waves — ancient global warming?

What do you think caused it? Was it those coal-fired generating plants the Romans built all over the Empire? Or maybe the SUVs that Jesus and His disciples tooled around the desert in?

What this all goes to show is that the world has been colder than it is now, and it has also been warmer — presumably considerably warmer at times. Regardless of the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide, there are natural, cyclical fluctuations in global climate that far exceed any changes in temperature that have occurred since the Industrial Revolution.

It’s too early to identify the effects that the human activity has on global temperatures; serious and reliable data have only been available for a micro-instant in climatological terms. The apocalyptic stampede by the cognoscenti to embrace Kyoto and destroy the world’s economy is one of the more foolhardy ideas to come down the pike.

But the elites are certain that Global Warming is Truth; all else is Heresy.

The "elites" have never abandoned their dreams of imposing a socialist paradise, and one of their basic strategies is to undermine capitalism by using the talking points of their "environmental religion".

I suspect that they truly believe that if humans would abandon capitalism and technology; go back to the cave and live the "simple life", then their ideology would finally work in the real world and their dreams of a religious caliphate international socialist paradise would finally be realized.

Perhaps that is why they have willingly joined forces with radical Islam, which suffers from the same inabilty to bring peace (unless you count death as the ultimate "peace") and prosperity to their adherents; and has the same fantasy.

Fantasy environmentalism -- bringing new life into the socialist agenda, and coming soon to a theater near you!

Sunday, June 25, 2006

For a group that wholeheartedly subscribes to moral relativity and subjective ethics, you've got to wonder about the left and their constant search for some kind of "moral authority" to justify their beliefs. After all, if morality is relative; if truth is subjective and there is no objective "good" or "bad"; then why bother?

Let us look at their tactics to try to understand the underlying psychological motivations in this obvious contradiction.

Cindy Sheehan is an "absolute moral authority" on the Iraq war because her son was killed in Iraq. To the leftists, it doesn't matter that there are hundreds--even thousands--of parents who happen to believe the opposite. The only opinion that matters and conveys authority is one that they agree with.

The Jersey Girls' view of the Iraq war has "absolute moral authority" since they had loved ones who died on 9/11. That there are others whose loved ones died that day is immaterial. Only the Jersey Girls have absolute moral authority and their motives are always completely pure--as Ann Coulter discovered when she dared to criticize them. No relativity of opinion there.

This article discusses the frequent leftist accusation of being a "chickenhawk" if you support the war but have not been a veteran; or have not lost a loved one or sent your own "children" off to fight in the war. John Murtha is one who makes this accusation. He has the proper moral authority, because he fought in Vietnam. So does John Kerry. The other 25% of the Congress who served in the military have no such authority (because they disagree with Murtha and Kerry perhaps?); and the opinions of the vast majority of the grown-ups who are actually doing the fighting for the American public are unimportant.

In all three of these cases, the persons in question have become the left's vocal "moral authority" because they happen to agree with the left's beliefs about the Iraq war and are anti-Bush, anti-Republican, and anti-American.

What these three examples (and there are many more) have in common is both a breathtaking subjectivism and relativism in one breath; and ideological absolutism in the next.

This is as good a demonstration as any of the inherent philosophical and psychological contradictions that the postmodern left exploits in order to achieve political power. They are perfectly aware that their positions don't make any sense and can be refuted by anyone with basic knowledge of logic and logical fallacies; but their goal is to maintain the psychological denial necessary to believe in the left's ideology. Interpreting this defense and exposing it is essential to countering that ideology.

The pattern therefore raises the question of which side of the contradiction is deepest for postmodernism. Is it that psotmodernists really are committed to relativism, but occasionally lapse into absolutism? Or are the absolutist commitments deepest and the relativism a rhetorical cover?

The possibility that the relativism is primary can be ruled out with some thought. If the modern leftist truly embraced relativism, then you would not see the uniformity of their politics. Hicks again:

If subjectivity and relativism were primary, then postmodernists would be adopting political positions across the spectrum, and that simply is not happeniing.

Indeed. Thus we must conclude that the moral relativism that characterizes the left's equation of terrorism with America; deliberate targeting of innocents with herculean efforts to spare innocent life; Bush with Hitler; Iraq with Vietnam; etc. etc. are simple rhetorical devices being used to manipulate and forward their socialist / totalitarian agenda.

The truth is that the postmodern leftists don't need to believe anything that they say. In fact, they can easily ignore evidence that contradicts their arguments; never acknowledge that their arguments (or more precisely, their beliefs) have been debunked and; and ultimately they can simply redefine words or resort to word games (the various meanings of "is" for example); or move the goalposts (those aren't the WMD's we were looking for) when convenient.

The word games and much of the use of anger and rage that are characteristic of much of their style can be a matter--not of using words to state things that they think are true--but rather of using words as weapons against and enemy that they still hope to destroy.

The value of people like Cindy Sheehan, John Murtha, the Jersey Girls et al; and incidents like Abu Ghraib and other leftist shibboleths-- is that they can be thrown out by the MSM to the population at large to "get your opponent off your back and get some breathing space."

If your opponent accepts that the debate is a matter of opinion or semantics, then your losing the argument does not matter: nobody is right or wrong. But if your opponent does not accept that everything is a matter of opinion, then his attention is diverted away from the subject matter at hand--namely politics--and into epistemology. For now he has to show why everything is not merely semantics, and that will take him awhile.

We see this done cyclically. No issue is every resolved. When the left realizes it is in a losing position, it simply backs off until it is opportune to revive the argument. And then they start back at the same points which were countered and try again, this time with more passion and outrage.

This theory of relativity works very well for them. We haven't heard from Cindy for a while, but we will. Soon Murtha will disappear from the MSM headlines and news shows as Haditha ebbs in the public consciousness--but both will return when another milestone in the Iraq war is met and surpassed or when something unquestionably positive happens--as we witnessed when Zarqawi was finally dispatched from this space-time continuum.

The question is, did bombing Dresden to defeat Hitler or dropping two nuclear bombs to force Japan to stop fighting make the Allies into barbarians? I think most people would still say of course not and argue that such destructive measures were necessary to save civilization itself — and certainly thousands of mainly American and Allied lives. But if this argument continues to carry the day, it's because we still view that historic period from its own perspective. We view it from a perspective in which Allied lives — our fathers, husbands, brothers and sons — counted for more than Axis lives, even those of women and children. How quaint. That is, this is not at all how we think anymore. If we still valued our own men more than the enemy and the "civilians" they hide among — and now I'm talking about the war in Iraq — our tactics would be totally different, and, not incidentally, infinitely more successful. We would drop bombs on city blocks, for example, and not waste men in dangerous house-to-house searches. We would destroy enemy sanctuaries in Syria and Iran and not disarm "insurgents" at perilous checkpoints in hostile Iraqi strongholds. In the 21st century, however, there is something that our society values more than our own lives — and more than the survival of civilization itself. That something may be described as the kind of moral superiority that comes from a good wallow in Abu Ghraib, Haditha, CIA interrogations or Guantanamo Bay. Morally superior people — Western elites — never "humiliate" prisoners, never kill civilians, never torture or incarcerate jihadists. Indeed, they would like to kill, I mean, prosecute, or at least tie the hands of, anyone who does. This, of course, only enhances their own moral superiority. But it doesn't win wars. And it won't save civilization.

No, it won't. But the simultaneously morally relative and morally superior left doesn't seem to care much about that minor detail.

UPDATE II: Assistant Village Idiot takes on an angry psychiatrist suffering from BDS, whose postmodern rhetoric isn't just postmodern...it is right out of elementary school.

Time for the weekly insanity update, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! This has been a week of rare idiocy (as always!). So, if you want to remain sane, the best thing is to poke some fun at the more egregious absurdities.

Send all entries for next week's carnival to Dr. Sanity by 8 pm ET on Saturday for Sunday's Carnival. Only one post entry weekly per blogger, please. Thanks for all the submissions. I try to use as many as possible! SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!!!

***************************************If you would like to Join the insanity, and add the Carnival of the Insanities button to your sidebar (clicking on it will always take you to the latest update of the Carnival), click on "Word of Blog" below the button to obtain the html code:

Saturday, June 24, 2006

StrategyPage delineates several key reasons why WMD finds in Iraq have been kept secret by the U.S. government, when they could have used the finds to counter political and partisan attacks that have endured since the beginning of the Iraq war:

The U.S. government has taken a beating for supposed failures to find weapons of mass destruction in the press, and from political opponents. There have been some discoveries that have made the news, most notably an incident in May, 2004, when terrorists used a 155-millimeter shell loaded with sarin in an IED. The shell detonated, exposing two soldiers to sarin nerve gas (both of whom survived and recovered). It is this attack that provides one explanation as to why many of the finds have been classified.

If the United States were to have announced WMD finds right away, it could have told terrorists (including those from al-Qaeda) where to look to locate chemical weapons. This would have placed troops at risk – for a marginal gain in public relations. A successful al-Qaeda chemical attack would have been a huge boost for their propaganda efforts as well, enabling them to get recruits and support (many people want to back a winner), and it would have caused a decline in American morale in Iraq and on the home front.

The other problem is that immediate disclosure could have exposed informants. Protecting informants who provide the location of caches is vital. Not only do dead informants tell no tales, their deaths silence other potential informants – because they want to keep on living.

In the bitter, rage-filled and extremely partisan political environment that America has endured since the 2000 election, it must seem strange to some (particularly on the sinister side of the political divide) that there are actually some national objectives--particularly in wartime--that could transcend the seemingly endless and infinitely petty desire to bash and undermine political opponents.

Yet, here we have an instance of such behavior. In psychiatric terms, what we are dealing with is...pure unadulterated emotional maturity ; and I have to say that it is both refreshing and reassuring to know that there are some adults in charge, who put the national interest above partisan politics.

In contrast, in the last few days we have also been witness to the immature, infantile, and incredibly narcissistic behavior of:

1) certain Democrats willing to sacrifice the national interest (as well as personal integrity) if it can put them in a better position for the 2008 presidential race;

and

2) certain media outlets who appear to think of themselves as a fourth branch of government who arrogantly assume they know what is best for the country and, coincidentally because they think (incorrectly, I suspect) that it will improve their bottom line.

The infantile children in our midst demand that this war be fought 1) with no American casualties; 2) with no negative political consequences; 3) with no setbacks; 4) with no hurting the enemy; 5) with no collateral damage; 6) with no ability to gather intelligence; 7) with no ability to deceive the enemy as to our intent; and 8) with no mess or fuss.

If the above criteria cannot be met, then they just don't want to play--no matter how strategically critical it may be to the national interests of the U.S.; or even how emboldened such defeatism makes the vicious and brutal enemy with whom we are engaged.

They just don't care about all that; they don't like it when things are difficult or take an attention span that goes beyond their politcal capabilities. They want to puck up their toys and get out now. Now. NOW!

Like any other typical immature, irrational, and demanding child--unable to come to grips with an unpleasant reality--they put their hands over their ears and shout loudly so they don't have to hear what they don't want to hear (even if it is good!). Then they pat each other on the back and congratulate themselves; absolutely certain that their self-absorbed whining and foot stomping somehow indicates that they are real grown-ups.

Meanwhile, the REAL grown-ups continue to make the sacrifices on the battlefield; the REAl grown-ups ignore the blatherings of the no-nothing press; the cut-and-run Democrats; and the we-hate-America left; the REAL grown-ups manage to put aside the partisanship and need to make short-term points; and do what needs to be done for the long-term good of this country.

The REAL grown-ups work toward victory over the enemy that wants to destroy our way of life.

Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet; make the hard choices; and do what is right--rather than what is easy or popular.

This week's winners in the Watcher's Council are now posted at the Watcher of Weasels . Every week the Council nominates posts from the blogs of the Council members, and posts from around the blogsphere. The Council then votes to select the "Best" of all these posts.

Friday, June 23, 2006

In November of last year, I highlighted on Dr. Sanity some photos from Amir Normandi. Normandi is Iranian-American photographer based in Chicago. In October 2005 his photography exhibit that was titled "No Veil Is Required" was shut down by Muslim students and faculty members at Harper College, in suburban Chicago.

It is an appalling situation when an institution of higher learning--presumably committed to encouraging free inquiry, free debate and free speech --engages in censorship because one group or another complains that they are offended. But this is exactly what it has come to in the politically correct halls of academia.

On the PC Victimhood Heirarchy, the absolute worse offense seems to be hurting muslim feelings. As the highest ranking victim group, their feelings always trump other religious groups' feelings.

We see liberal institution after institution in this country fearful of taking a stand for free speech and free thought--especially when Islam is involved. Normandi's art is only one example of the abject self-imposed censorship implemented in Western societies in an effort to appease. The most notorious example of such censorship came from the Mohammed cartoon controversy, when many media outlets refused to reprint some harmless cartoons depicting Mohammed, simply because it might offend muslims.

There is another reason why colleges like Harper and others, as well as MSM outlets routinely yield to the most outrageous demands of these muslim groups.

Remember the chess scene from Star Wars where R2D2 and Chewbacca are playing?

THREEPIO: He made a fair move. Screaming about it won't help you.HAN: (interrupting) Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee.THREEPIO: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid.HAN: That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their socketwhen they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.THREEPIO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, Artoo. Letthe Wookiee win.

Well, when it comes to dealing with muslim groups, the new strategy of our brave universities and media is to always let Islam win. (and, btw, I don't mean to insult fictional Wookies by the comparison).

Because, when one is dealing with muslim groups these days, there is always the unspoken threat of unleashing the mindless violence and butchery that has become the international hallmark of the extremists in their sad religion. The widespread rage at the Mohammed cartoons in the muslim world reminds us not only how backward and barbaric are the underpinnings of the "religion of peace" as it is practiced in many parts of the world, but also how willing many muslims and etremist groups are to back up their particular opinions by killing any who disagree with them.

I have written many times on the oppression of women under Islam (here, here, here, and here for example). The institutional misogyny that encourages the subjugation and humilition of women in the Islamic world (and even encourages and enables the murder of women as a means of regaining male or family "honor") is a byproduct of a culture that is terrified of female sexuality. The males have no other way to obtain power except by subjugating women under the guise of "protecting" them.

In Muslim society the male is dominant and almighty since he is made after God, when women have been created as a necessary evil to tempt males. In other words, the female body is the closest thing to the Devil, something which has to be dominated as a proof a faith.

As I have suggested before, the religious police in those societies are obsessed with sex; and therefore see threatening sexuality everywhere; yet they insist that Western society is the one obsessed with sex. I beg to differ.

At any rate, Normandi was kind enough to honor me with an exclusive preview of several photos from the next exhibit set for fall, 2006, titled "Desire No Shackle".

What I like most about Normandi's photos is explicitly powerful sexuality in the women that breaks through the societal restrictions. This must truly be extremely frightening to many of the pathologically inadequate men of Islam.

In a piece posted at RealClearPolitics this morning, Jack Kelly talks about the one clear similarity between Iraq and Vietnam--the fact that the enemy in both conflicts, despairing of victory on the battlefield, sought to win with a propaganda campaign. In the course of this discussion, Kelly relates this tidbit:

A disturbing anecdote from Col. McMaster illustrates why. His 3rd ACR broke the insurgents' hold of the city of Tal Afar last September in an operation which generated these effusive words of praise from the town's mayor:

"To the lion hearts who liberated our city from the grasp of terrorists who were beheading men, women and children in the streets...(you are) not only courageous men and women, but avenging angels sent by The God Himself to fight the evil of terrorism."

Time magazine had a reporter and a photographer embedded with the 3rd ACR. When the battle was over, they filed a lengthy story and nearly 100 photographs.

"When the issue came out, the guts had been edited out of the reporter's story and none of the photographs he submitted were used," said the admiral, quoting Col. McMaster. "When the reporter questioned why his story was eviscerated, his editors...responded that the story and pictures were 'too heroic.'"

Kelly correctly notes the similarity in the national media's willingness to be the enemy's propaganda dupes; but there is another role the media is playing that is equally, if not more frightening. The media is not only mindlessly spewing forth the anti-American enemy propaganda, it is doing the enemy's spying for them, by reporting the details of yet another classified national security program. Stephen Spruiell at MediaBlog:

According to the NYT's own reporting, the program is legal. The program is helping us catch terrorists. The administration has briefed the appropriate members of Congress. The program has built-in safeguards to prevent abuse. And yet, with nothing more than a vague appeal to the "public interest" (which apparently is not outweighed in this case by the public's interest in apprehending terrorists), the NYT disregards all that and publishes intimate, classified details about the program. Keller and his team really do believe they are above the law. When it comes to national security, it isn't the government that should decide when secrecy is essential to a program's effectiveness. It is the New York Times.

National security be damned. There are Pulitzers to be won.

From these two articles, we begin to get an idea of what Time and the NY Times really considers "heroic". And, what a surprise, what comes across very clearly is that the only heroism in this conflict is their own behavior, speaking the cliched "truth to power", standing up for the fundamental principles of a free press and the public's right to know the truth. Having identified their real enemy--the Bush Administration--they willingly aid and abet the terrorists, whose side they are clearly on.

National security be damned. They have their own war to win. And they won't cut and run or redeply their forces until their mission is accomplished and Bush is defeated. Anything that furthers that specific goal, by their definition, is truly heroic.

Yet again, the New York Times was presented with a simple choice: help protect American national security or help al Qaeda.

Yet again, it sided with al Qaeda. Once again, members of the American intelligence community had a simple choice: remain faithful to their oath — the solemn promise the nation requires before entrusting them with the secrets on which our safety depends — or violate that oath and place themselves and their subjective notions of propriety above the law.

These people are not acting like journalists at all. They are acting as a fourth branch of government, co-equal with the others. They arrogate to themselves the power to classify and declassify, to protect or reveal secrets and sources, as they see fit. Which is to say, according to their political ambitions.

And, you know what? They haven't even been elected! How it must irk them that Bush was.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Stefania has moved! Her invaluable blog that keeps up with the freedom movements from all around the world-- Free Thoughts --can now be found here.

The bloggers at Maggie's Farm are on a roll. Just keep scrolling down.

Chester speculates on the possible reasons why we are just now hearing about the 500 sarin and mustard gas chemical artillery rounds. Read it and learn. Also, I found this piece at StrategyPage quite interesting.

Meanwhile, ShrinkWrapped wonders if the lack of reporting on the WMD story " is an example of unconscious Confirmation Bias or a conscious decision to not report certain news that would inevitably bring into question some of the unquestioned assumptions of the left, recently repeated here, that "Bush lied" about Iraq's WMD."

The Anchoress notes the media's full court press on global warming; and The Corner notices that in spite of the headline, the NAS report actually debunks the famous "hockey stick" graph--on which much of the environmental fearmongering relies.

Last but not least, this article if for those who still haven't figured out the Islamist agenda.

Wretchard, in commenting on one of his own posts regarding torture has this to say:

It's amazing how many countries you find right under the surface participating in this War on Terror thing. European countries, African countries, Arab countries, Asian countries.

Some time ago there was an allegation that there were Secret Prisons in Europe. Maybe there were prisons but they were probably not very secret to the governments of those countries, though they've denied they ever existed. So this is the way it probably works. Everybody gets to spit in the USA's face in public, then with their left hand they secretly hand poor Uncle Sam some change. Or like the 19th century streetwalkers all the gents would see in the shadows and refuse to recognize in broad day. The deal is keep us safe and if we spit in your face, you'll understand old chap. Appearances and all. Torture is illegal, but if you must save us, we know you'll do the "right" thing.

I think I'll go get a beer. This line of reasoning is making me feel bad.

I always thought Ayn Rand perfectly described the kind of behavior that Wretchard is talking about. She called it the "sanction of the victim" and at its root is the insanely self-destructive shame at our own economic success; a willing acceptance of guilt for all the world's problems; and tolerating the abuse, even as we take responsibility for making things right.

Repeatedly over the years (but especially more recently), the world has said to America, "We will give you the honor and privilege of fixing our problems for us; and in return, we get to spit in your face; denounce you as immoral; and generally denigrate your culture, your leaders, and your people."

The UN's perverse anti-Americanism is well documented. No other country gives more to this organization than the U.S.; and no other country is on the receiving end of its absurd and childish criticisms more.

When it comes to taking the risks and absorbing the costs--financial and human-- for almost any project, the United States is automatically expected to shoulder the financial responsibilities; stop the megalomaniacal madmen; and protect everyone else.

And what do they get in return? Public scorn and derision.

Rand correctly saw that when need (or victimhood), replaces ability as the highest of societal values ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"), it creates a society in which the needs of some place a moral claim on the lives of others.

For too long, the world has staked a moral claim on America--the most productive, most free country on the face of the planet. This moral claim has shackled the benevolent American spirit--repeatedly exploiting its goodwill and the generous heart of its people; while deliberately undermining and denegrating that spirit; reveling in America's setbacks and failures; yet always demanding more. Nothing we do is ever good enough, smart enough, perfect enough--or, even enough for the looters of the world.

The world's leading intellectuals concur that we are flawed and obviously the source of all evil in the world (could you fix Darfur next? How about North Korea and Iran--can't you do something about them before it's too late?)

As the rest of the world vies for victimhood status so that their "need" can bind them to us, the people of the U.S. fail to see that the only real victims in this manipulative power game known as "anti-Americanism--is...America.

Only by withdrawing the "sanction of the victim," --i.e., refusing to be manipulated in this manner--refusing to give aid where there is scorn and not even grudging gratitude; refusing to shoulder the burden of all as they beat us upon the back and tell us to go faster, do it better, and jump higher; refusing to pay their debts; fix their problems; or protect them from their own, deliberate, suicidal behavior--only then will the looters and the parasites be forced to recognize reality.

Every time I see our country accept the premises of the insane political correctness promulgated by the political left--a doctrine that claims that, while all cultures and countries are equal; you, America, are uniquely bad and evil and must be punished for your sins. Every time I witness the hysteria mounted when America falls short of its own ideals--and then willingly and honorably acknowledges the fact and takes steps to correct it; every time I witness the granting of moral equivalence between America and the barbaric terrorists who get a free pass from the international community and the MSM for their behavior (being a terrorist means never having to say you're sorry as far as the left is concerned)-- I am appalled.

Is there no decency, no honor left in the Democratic party anymore? Has most of the world gone completely insane? Is the suicidal appeasement of evil and the denigration of good now the norm? And what will happen to the world if America is finally beaten down and just...shrugs...when the next international crisis arises.

Compare this to Churchill’s governing philosophy during a season of intense political strife. As Martin Gilbert recounts in his gem of a book, Winston Churchill’s War Leadership, the new prime minister resolved to forget the past. Even those associated with the disastrous policy of appeasement toward Hitler found a place in Churchill’s administration: The achievement of national unity against the enemy was all important. “Of this I am quite sure,” he said, “that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future.”

Democrats insist on keeping open this quarrel between past and present, and their posturing has deepened the nation’s political divisions. The Bush administration has begun meeting regularly with high-profile critics, such as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Yet Bush has failed to recruit a single, respected Democratic leader to help prosecute the war. (There are, to be sure, pitifully few to choose from.) What might the debate over Iraq be like today, however, if the president had named Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of Defense during his second term?

Perhaps the most insidious domestic enemy that confronted Churchill in wartime was the spirit of defeatism. There was lots of it in the early days of the war, when Britain stood alone against the Nazi juggernaut. There were proposals to sue for peace with Hitler, fears of a successful German invasion of England, and military blunders that cost thousands of British lives. Churchill never lost heart. “The prime minister expects all His Majesty’s Servants in high places to set an example of steadiness and resolution,” he said. “They should check and rebuke expressions of loose and ill-digested opinion in their circles.”

The loose and ill-digested opinions about the Iraq war could fill volumes. No matter what the sign of progress in the country — fair elections, a liberal constitution, a representative government — some detractors seem seized by an almost pathological gloom.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Jeff Emmanuel seems surprised that so-called "human rights" groups are strangely silent about the brutal killings of two kidnapped American soldiers--as they have been silent about all the other atrocities committed by the terrorists in Iraq.

I am not at all surprised.

Judith Apt Klinghoffer wonders how it is that the champions of the Third World underdogs show so much interest in the death of two American soldiers but so little interest in the fate of Basra's elderly victims?

Indeed, it would be accurate to say that both MSM and the Human Rights community is involved in a major struggle to convince the world of the essential moral equivalence between democracies and terrorist organizations(tyrannies are presented as morally superior put upon "moderates.") They do so by focusing on the imagined or real transgressions of democracies and by covering up the purposeful viciousness of the terrorists.

She goes on further to say:

Furthermore, despite repeated proof of terrorists media manipulation, MSM reports their charges without the same caveats it routinely attaches to Israeli, British or American reports. Indeed, they take advantage of the careful pronouncement "we are investigating" democratic officials are forced to make to run with unproven charges. By the time the results of the investigation are revealed the damage is not only done but findings which fail to substantiate the early charges are either ignored, dismissed as cover ups or relegated to the back corner of page 25.

Convincing the world of the moral equivalence between democracies and terrorists is just one of the aims of the international elite represented by MSM and the self appointed Human Rights community. Persuading the international community that the war on terror is unwinnable is another. Note how elegantly the BBC achieves its dual aims by placing the bombing of the Basra old age home in the context of coalition forces ineffectiveness rather than in the context of terrorist depravity

These human rights groups are not particularly interested in human rights unless it happens to further their ideological agenda. The MSM has a parallel--if not identical--ideological agenda.

Michelle Malkin notes that at least one human rights group --Amnesty International-- has condemned the atrocities against the American soldiers. Wretchard, however, is far from impressed.

...Early on in the Afghan Campaign--you remember that one, the one that was an illegal war of mass punishment, doomed to failure due to the harsh Afghan winter, the one that would cause no less than 200,000 civilian casualties and set off a horrific famine, the one that was foretold would tie us down for years just as the Soviets were, the self-same war that the self-same critics now praise as a model of a "good" war they could support, unlike, sadly, the Iraq War--an American soldier was caught on a mountainside by a rush of Taliban fighters. A circling American helicopter filming the battle caught the moment.

Just prior to realizing that he was without escape, the American soldier turned to face the onrushing mob of Taliban and raised his hands. He was grabbed by the head and forced to his knees and a man with a knife cut his torso open from side to side. The American soldier, in full uniform, fighting in a declared war, having just surrendered, was executed on camera.

There were no thundering editorials in the New York Times decrying this violation of the most basic of the rules of war, nor sophisticated leaders in the Guardian worrying aloud what this latest violation of international human rights bode for the future of humanity.

This is how the world works: American soldiers are supposed to be brutally executed as a matter of course. A simple prisoner of war camp where men such as that that executed our soldier are treated to Muslim chaplains, three halal meals a day, an exercise yard and calls to prayer, however, is clearly illegal and a matter of grave international concern.

The pirated tape of the execution is available for download at any number of Muslim websites or, if you lack Internet access, as a video or DVD at any number of Muslim bazaars from Indonesia to London. Act now and we'll throw in the beheading of the Jew spy Daniel Pearl for half-price. No need to hide such things. They are sold openly. Actually, not very far from the Guardian's offices, which doesn't strike me as entirely coincidental. After all, speaking truth to power in the form of George W. Bush won't get you killed. Printing a cartoon or saying the wrong thing, however....

Just remember, that these human rights groups and the MSM are really talking without speaking. Their message is coming through loud and clear to some of us, but many are still hearing without listening.

And in the naked light I sawTen thousand people, maybe morePeople talking without speakingPeople hearing without listeningPeople writing songs that voices never shareAnd no one daredDisturb the sound of silence

This cacophonous silence must end; and we must stand up to all the enablers in the MSM and on the political left who continue to encourage and support these sadistic barbarians.